Thanks Rory I couldn't put it better myself, I have tried to explain this in the past but gave up!
Just leave this here
Thanks Rory I couldn't put it better myself, I have tried to explain this in the past but gave up!
Just leave this here
Last edited by craig_colliass; 6th May 2016 at 11:20.
That's mad Craig.. I love it! a small air tank might be good to smooth out the air supply; that compressor sounded a little sad :L
Thanks Rory I'm thinking of using a plastic coke bottle
BTW under the current rules this is a walker!
Just put this here as the second video in the walker project.
The project is going OK at the moment and the leg configuration seems to be OK for now.
They are made of 15mm HDPE, stuff I had left over from making all the wheels for Gabriel. At 15mm it is stiff enough to support the 27kg.
I'm now going to be looking at making the other 4 legs and sorting out brackets for the robot. the legs will be fitted on a backbone style chassis with a platform on top for the compressors and v/v gear. I'm not sure how to do that yet but lets get the legs done first!
Wow this looks incredible! The audience will go wild when they see this walking into the arena.
I am curious though whether it technically has 2 degrees of freedom, as it is still essentially cam based surely the position of the legs is fully defined by the angle of the camshaft meaning 1 degree of freedom? And I guess you wouldn't be able to demonstrate two degrees of movement separately.
Maybe this could be overcome by controlling it with a microcontroller and solenoid based valves, but assuming you have a fixed walking gate it could still be classed as single degree of freedom. I guess this shows just how ridiculous the 2 degree of freedom rule is as in order to have a true 2 degrees of freedom you would have to be able to remotely alter the gate in real time which is just impractical in a fast pace combat environment
Each leg has 2 separate actuators, operated by 2 separate valves! if those valves were operated by Pixies would that make it OK?
Trust me anyone who says this dose not comply, will only be confirming that this (in my view ridiculous) rule was only put in place to stop innovation and diversity in the robot scene.
Anyone who wishes to stand before me and tell me this is not compliant with the WALKER RULE is a very brave man!!
It is a walker mechanisme according to the rules, and it can use the extra weight allotted to it.
It would take a rule change to block this great idea.
2 actuators acting independently, looks like a walker to me. And a nice mechanism at that.
If that is classed at a single degree of freedom, we've gone mad. I prefer to think of it as 2 separate planes rather than 2 DoF. If this was a 3D CAD model, for example, the legs are moving in both the X- and Y-planes, whereas something like Anarchy, Pilgrim or Spiderbot has legs that only move in one plane, or 1 DoF (as barmy as it seems that Pilgrim doesn't count as a walker).
I'd be surprised if anyone argued that this only has one DoF. It's a great build so far and kudos to Craig for tackling it.
Reckon its the best way to do it and definitely counts as a walker in my opinion (but then so should a lot of other mechanisms), otherwise we're going to make it so complicated that its beyond the reach of everyone and essentially make all robots the same. Really love the design of this.
Bookmarks